BoxRec

What do you (Brit) lads think of how your govenment is handling this situation (and events since September 11th) and the impact it is having on the country?

Being Irish, I must say I feel much safer when I'm back in my own country - a neutral one at that.

If I were a Brit, I would be furious that Blair won't step out of the shadow of Bush and stand up for what (I think) the majority of the country wants.

What benefit is Britain getting from getting involved in the war after September 11th? The country here is clearly not as safe since that involvement - the July 7th bombings have proved that, and now this today with the foiled attempt on the UK-USA flights. You send soldiers over there (Afghan & Iraq) and risk their lives, and at the same time you increase the risk of losing more lives at home via. the increase terrorism threat.

With the Israeli-Lebanon conflict, this threat is increased even more. What are they doing letting American planes stop in Scotland on their way to Israel to supply them with missiles. Why are they standing by quietly? It's inviting trouble.

I know during the Afghan war, some American planes stopped at Shannon (in Ireland) to refuel. This completely took the p1ss out of our supposed neutral status and I was one of many to be appauled by it.

How far do you think this will escalate and what do you think is the solution to it (and what action should Britain be taking)? I saw George Galloway on Sky News on Sunday morning and agreed with a lot of what he had to say (see the you tube link below - it's well worth a look). I'm not the most clued up person with regards to politics, but maybe some of you can shed some light on it all?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249JaIaubVw

Well, yet again, we are licking the balls of America.

Hisbollah captures 2 BLOODY SOLIDERS and Israel starts missile strikes on civilians in response. Everyone except America and Britain has demanded an immediate ceasefire, and now we have terrorists trying to blow up our planes.

Well done Blair you murdering pudendum, you dragged us into a war in Iraq that nobody really wanted, and have made the entire nation unsafe as a result.

Trouble is, any prime minister is going to keep on toadying to the Americans.

All empires rise and fall, and the pattern is always the same. Massive expenditure on defence and fighting a war on many fronts, whilst the rising powers continue just building their infrastructure. America is spending vast sums of money to try and get it's hands on oil resources by force, and meanwhile China and India are ploughing vast sums into their infrastrucutre and forging trade alliances as America makes enemies with more and more nations in the area it is trying to annexe.

America will be forced to leave Iraq and it's interests in Afghanistan (which is connected to an important oil pipeline), and will have spent vast sums achieving little except making more virtiolic and powerful enemies.

The China issue is certainly the most interesting in the world today in terms of global supremacy. Historically I of course completely agree that empires have always risen and then fallen, however this is a different age.

Nuclear deterrent (particularly from the US) is probably enough to always secure their own borders and their global interests. It might never change now. It’s not a case of China or anyone else simply marching hordes of their own army over a border somewhere as it would always have been historically.

I do agree Israel is an illegal state, and the Israelis are terrorists as much as any Palestinian is. Their response to the Lebanon situation has been a disagree, and the (Jew controlled) media here and in America even more so. E.g. 50 Lebanese get killed = “an unfortunate aspect of war” …. 3 Israelis get killed = “an atrocity”….

Hmmmm….. I love the neutrality of the media…

Yes all this good and evil stuff really rankles, the simplistic terms they talk in about these conflicts, as if one side really represents good, and the other evil, patronising garbage, which I don't for one moment believe that either man believes. For all his dumbass hick act, Bush Sr is an urbane and sophisticated fellow, maybe not so bright, but smart enough that he knows the real reason for these conflicts. That shit kicker texan good ole boy act might fool the shitwits in the bible belt who vote for him, but it's far from the real man.

Fact is, these wars are about vested interests. As you say, America is trying to do a swap for oil and resources for their way of life, and find it a real slap in the face that the governments of many nations don't want their way of life foisted upon them.

Iran and Syria have been using Lebanon as a gateway to the west for many years, as it allows them to extend their border to Israel. They no doubt had a feeling that if they kidnapped two soliders, they could spark a conflict and they have succeeded. Iran is not willing to allow the region to settle down and for America to get a foothold, and who can blame them.

Why should the whole world follow a single model? Just because we want to live a certain way, doesn't mean it is the best or only way.

Loftgroov wrote:The China issue is certainly the most interesting in the world today in terms of global supremacy. Historically I of course completely agree that empires have always risen and then fallen, however this is a different age.

Nuclear deterrent (particularly from the US) is probably enough to always secure their own borders and their global interests. It might never change now. It’s not a case of China or anyone else simply marching hordes of their own army over a border somewhere as it would always have been historically.

I do agree Israel is an illegal state, and the Israelis are terrorists as much as any Palestinian is. Their response to the Lebanon situation has been a disagree, and the (Jew controlled) media here and in America even more so. E.g. 50 Lebanese get killed = “an unfortunate aspect of war” …. 3 Israelis get killed = “an atrocity”….

Hmmmm….. I love the neutrality of the media…

Nuclear weapons are so powerful, that merely having them is enough. China won't need to send hordes of troops to overtake america, it has a huge population, massive industry, educated people, and expertise. The fact that America dare not screw with China is enough, nobody in fact will screw with China, full stop.

This is why Iran wants nuclear weapons, and who can blame them. Once they have nuclear arms, America will not dare invade them, and thus they will, with their vast oil reserves become a major player, and in fact are trading with Russia and China increasingly.

America is probably hoping that they can establish another puppet state in Iraq, and ideally have another Iran Iraq war, but the trouble is that Iraq is screwed up, and rearming them would cost a small fortune. Until Saddam refused to play ball, he was their friend as he kept the Iranians under manners, but then his time came and it was time to get rid before someone else got in there.

Terence wrote:My girlfriend studied economic history and has been theorising that America will collapse economically in our lifetime. 'My Life' by Bill Clinton features the former President explaining that Republican budgeting completely flies in the face of mathematcis and accounting, Clinton got the economy going and says the secret of his success was book-keeping. For the current regime the secret to maintaining any power of this kind is ensuring they have more land/oil to swipe and Starbucks to open. America thinks it will last forever, one day it will just like a fighter who carries on for too long and gets dinked.

On the other hand I studied philosophy myself and recall Hegel saying the destiny of our future, good or bad, would be settled in North America, pretty far thinking surmising by the old guy. Personally I feel that Israel will be the key, it is a heart transplant (Israel) that is being rejected by its host (the East). At some point we may be forced to abandon globalisation and accept that the East should be seperated from the West, our trade will then rely on the old trading routes.

As for the UK, well our Prime Minister could justly be called on to answer war crimes and is pouring salt in the wounds with his recent speech in the US (shown on BBC News 24 and transcript available) and his insistence on using the language of a theologian (good, evil and all that piss). He says Israel was attacked and has a right to respnd, terror must be treated harshly. It makes me wonder why we didn't bomb Dublin and southern Ireland when the IRA was in full swing.

".... heart transplant that is being rejected by it's host..." Quality Terrence. Have you ever thought of writing for the Independent?

Why does the UK have such warm feelings for Israel. Didn't Israeli guerilla units attack British soldiers around the WWII era. Also killed a British Lord in Cairo .

I don't see this Jewish bias in the media you guys are talking about. Maybe in the past but not in this conflict. All I hear from the media is how bad Israel is and they should pull out ect....

Hezbollah is the real villian. Their would be no civilians getting killed if they would launch their rockets from non populated area's. Hezbollah launches rockets from civilian area's then expects no retaliation because of their location. Israel called their bluff. The bottom line is Hezbollah started this thing with the kidnapping and the rocket fire. NOBODY put a gun to Hezbollah's head and told them to start a war with a legitimate army. No Hezbollah, no war. Not this one anyway.

Lefthookhappy19 wrote:I don't see this Jewish bias in the media you guys are talking about. Maybe in the past but not in this conflict. All I hear from the media is how bad Israel is and they should pull out ect....

Hezbollah is the real villian. Their would be no civilians getting killed if they would launch their rockets from non populated area's. Hezbollah launches rockets from civilian area's then expects no retaliation because of their location. Israel called their bluff. The bottom line is Hezbollah started this thing with the kidnapping and the rocket fire. NOBODY put a gun to Hezbollah's head and told them to start a war with a legitimate army. No Hezbollah, no war. Not this one anyway.

That is an oversimplification. You could just as easily say; no Israel, no war.
There is plenty of bias either way in the media, but the fact remains Hezbollah are a terrorist organisation killing civilians whilst the Israeli's are a professional army killing civilians.
I personally have little time for either side.

Israel is an illegal state? Maybe but then all states are illegal - all countries involve some invasion, some aggression.... Israel just hapens to be very recent.....

I do think hthe Israeli response is disproportionate, but all the surrounding states want to destroy it..... the pro-Israeli lobby would argue that the land was originally theirs anyway.

Worlwide Muslim aggression is the real problem; Islam has no room for compromise - the theology says it is their way or no way effectively.

The iraq war is unjustifiable and most Europeans feel this way, but Islam in Europe is the biggest threat to Western civilization......

I believe Israel had little choice. Independent of how many or how few Israeli soliders Hezobollah kidnapped, Hezbollah was sitting in Southern Lebanon building up a huge missiles arsenal, with the declared intention to use it for destroying Israel. Israel had to remove Hezbollah's attacking capacity before it became overwhelming.

What irritates me are comments like "Israel is an illegal state". This is simply wrong and at odds with the historical facts, and it is an adaption of the Hezbollah-type propaganda line.

Pre-independence Palestine was a British protectorate with both Arab and Jewish inhabitants, in which both groups were positioning themselves for post-British times, and where the British made inconsistent promises to both. After WWII the UN proposed to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. The Arabs rejected this proposal, and the Arab neighboring states invaded Palestine. The Israeli army drove them out, and this was the beginning of the situation that we have today.

I'm far from a defender of all of Israel's actions, and -- to deflect predictable reactions -- I am neither Jewish nor a supporter of the current US president and his miguided (and horribly incompetently executed) "war against terror". But I believe it's hard to blame Israel for an excess reaction here. If the Europeans want the fighting to stop, they should send troops to secure the Israeli-Lebanese border and deal with Hezbollah themselves.

Taki... wrote:but the fact remains Hezbollah are a terrorist organisation killing civilians whilst the Israeli's are a professional army killing civilians.

Now this is what I call an over-simplification.

pundit wrote:I believe Israel had little choice. Independent of how many or how few Israeli soliders Hezobollah kidnapped, Hezbollah was sitting in Southern Lebanon building up a huge missiles arsenal, with the declared intention to use it for destroying Israel. Israel had to remove Hezbollah's attacking capacity before it became overwhelming.

What irritates me are comments like "Israel is an illegal state". This is simply wrong and at odds with the historical facts, and it is an adaption of the Hezbollah-type propaganda line.

Pre-independence Palestine was a British protectorate with both Arab and Jewish inhabitants, in which both groups were positioning themselves for post-British times, and where the British made inconsistent promises to both. After WWII the UN proposed to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. The Arabs rejected this proposal, and the Arab neighboring states invaded Palestine. The Israeli army drove them out, and this was the beginning of the situation that we have today.

I'm far from a defender of all of Israel's actions, and -- to deflect predictable reactions -- I am neither Jewish nor a supporter of the current US president and his miguided (and horribly incompetently executed) "war against terror". But I believe it's hard to blame Israel for an excess reaction here. If the Europeans want the fighting to stop, they should send troops to secure the Israeli-Lebanese border and deal with Hezbollah themselves.

I don't think Israel would agree to that though, they want to crush Hezbollah and control the borders.

Bottom line is that Israel is by far the most powerful state in the region with the possible exception of Iran which has a huge standing army. Israel is the best equipped and perhaps the most modern army in the world. The Cartoucha rockets that Hezbollah has are pretty primitive and not very powerful, just looks at the figures for the deaths on each side, Israel has killed 10 times as many people or thereabouts.

johnswan1 wrote: I saw George Galloway on Sky News on Sunday morning and agreed with a lot of what he had to say (see the you tube link below - it's well worth a look). I'm not the most clued up person with regards to politics, but maybe some of you can shed some light on it all?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249JaIaubVw

I am working with George on a book to be published in October. It is interesting to hear him talk about this war and the way that America and the UK create "villains" to help force through their own international and domestic agenda.

I do not know the full ins and outs of yesterday's "terror" alert, but I cannot help but see a link to the fact that the government is struggling to get its Identity card legislation through.

And, of course, all the coverage is discussing the arrested men as "terrorists" before any charges have even been announced. While every time people are arrested it gets trumpted all over the news, the fact that 99% are released without charge is seldom if ever mentioned.

None of this is to say that there are o threats and some serious loons out there. however, the raising and lowering of terror alerts is a known method of controling the thoughts of the masses and driving home legislation through for another agenda

Slapsie

.[/quote]

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Well, yet again, we are licking the balls of America.

Hisbollah captures 2 BLOODY SOLIDERS and Israel starts missile strikes on civilians in response. Everyone except America and Britain has demanded an immediate ceasefire, and now we have terrorists trying to blow up our planes.

Well done Blair you murdering pudendum, you dragged us into a war in Iraq that nobody really wanted, and have made the entire nation unsafe as a result.

Trouble is, any prime minister is going to keep on toadying to the Americans.

But not to this extent. PMs were never extensions of the President's sore, blistering haemmoroids before. Even Blair wasn't - until the War on Iraq when he _ucking lied to us all.

Blair has made bad investments & if he is going to make up the deficit he needs to go on the bloody stupid speech tour in America when he's out of office. Hence the gimme a job tour of recent. Where the wealthy Yanks will pay money to hear about his personal life and all the rest of that Wank. Twisted lizard mouth landed beach whale Cherie proved that already - that there is a massive market for it. So he cannot afford to distance himself from the land of apple pie, as he can make sihtloads of money just talking bollox.

Of course, with him on the way out there's more pressure to leave a "legacy", so there's just no stopping the bostard. I like it how last week there was such a fuss that he was flying over to America, to make Bush more urgently press for a cease to the Israel-Hezbollah hostilities - when in fact they'd already made the agreement and nothing happened anyways.

The sick thing is, while he's thinking in totally selfish terms, and in reality wants to defer a solution, Lebanon is going up in smoke.

Terence wrote:Pundit, E, well I'm about to irritate you even more because Israel is an aberration. Why do the surrounding lands want to destroy it? We had those problems with our neighbours for centuries yet they have subsided, why is this one ongoing? Because Israel is a big chunk of land that was thrown into an area that will not accept it. It is populated by Israeli's not Jews.

E is prejudiced against Islam so there is no use trying to get through to him, his mind is closed. However if Islam is aggressive and full of terrorists then why is our army different? Iraq was less than justified and our treatment of prisoners is inhumane. Islam is seen as blood thirsty because it has states with the death penalty, I suppose injection with a dose or the electric chair is a civilised way of administering the death penalty. You see someone being beheaded on TV or the internet, it is horrible, maybe we need to see the footage of villages in flames and children in pieces. One beheading creates outrage, one life lost, one bombing mission makes us feel proud to be British.

How many anti-Islam/Palestine posters used to cry over the apartheid situation in South Africa? How many used to support former terrorist turned acceptable dissident Mandela?

Lebanon have a right to build up a defence capability, they live next to a chunk of Europe and see that the West is sending itself back into the dark ages so they may presume more Eastern land will be aggressively taken.

Israel is an illegal state, Balfour broke an agreement that the land would not be under colonial rule and took it by force. Zionists jockeyed for position and eventually plans for a migration became invasion plans. Palestinians rejected the settlement plans due to the fact that their land had been carved up over and over, the inhabitants of a land deserve to keep the land, not be forced out by the Zionists. Palestine has always had 90+% Arab population, there was a sprinkling of Orthodox Jews and Christians who stayed on after the Crusades and were allowed to do so. Then the Arab population is down to what? High 50's? The idea that they decided to migrate from their homes and give the land over to the Zionists is a myth. They were forced from their homes and under Zionist paranoia, shared by the US, the region became a place of instability. Incidently paranoia is a result of past misdeeds, if you do lots of things wrong you begin to think lots of wrong will be done to you by a multitude of enemies.

I'm not saying you are Jewish Pundit. Answer me this: How did the Zionists raise an army in less than 20 years powerful enough to invade a land and conquer it? How did a people who are traditionally scattered across the world and had suffered losses in the region of 4-5 million (not 6, that number includes Gypsy's, homosexuals and other 'deviants') bounce back to raise an army strong enough to repel a region and its neighbours? That must be the miracle the Torah talked about, in which case where was the king from the Davidic line to lead them into Israel? A Zionist is not a Jew, look at the two words, look at America and American. A Zionist is not a practitioner of Orthodox Judaism, yet a Zionist points to the covenant made with Yawah as the 'contract' bestowing the land onto them. Yet if you break the covenant, if you take an interpretive approach to the Torah using reason you are no longer a person of faith so you are no longer, strictly, a Jew, you have no claim on Jerusalem. A Zionist is not a Jew, they ignore the dictates of the Torah so therefore they cannot claim that Yahweh bestowed the land to them, they cannot claim to be the chosen people and must live in the countries of others.

I am not anti-Semitic. I am anti-Zionist. When the Crusades invaded Jerusalem they destroyed philosophical, theological and mathematical texts as they were written by 'barbarians', they destroyed buildings and sacred places and built sturdy castles to protect their interests. Israel is another castle protecting the interests of the Western Crusaders. The only problem is that Islam has a long history of biding its time. It also has an history of conversion, it has been attacked many times and the pattern has always been that it turns its enemies into Muslims. Our way of life is a nano second in world history and in that second we have almost completely exhausted world resources, the US will not take part in replenishing those sources because it arrogantly believes that it will take the resources away from the East. I differ.

Whew, this one is way off-topic. It is pretty interesting though

Yes I am anti-Islam. I am anti all organized religion. But Islam, by looking at its theology, doctrine, history and present day activity is a religion of aggressive oppression and justifies violence and forced conversion explicitly in many texts. Islam has bloddy borders - look at conflicts around the world - how many involve Islam? Islam has one central tenet - only the MUslim way is acceptable - there is no room for compromise. Muslims do not like diplomacy - they favour aggressive, violent action as justified by various passages in the koran.

And not only is your take on the crusades misguided (Crusades rather than being an aggressive attack, were in many ways a defensive action to defend against persecution of the Christian minority) - these were hundreds of years ago - how can these be relevant now???? Most Europeans are no longer practising Christians anyway.

Additionally - why should our civilians die for what Blair & Bush are d oing?
The majority of people (including you will be interested to hear daily Mail readers) are against the war in Iraq. I certainly am. 25% of Muslims in this country supported the attacks on the tube....??? Against civilians, probably none of which supported the Iraq war.... how twisted is that?


As to Israel - I am against Zionism, against the disproportionate violence of the ISraelis against LEbanon.... but 'illegal state' or not - what is your solution????

You can't wipe Israel off the map now....there are 5 million Jewish inhabitants there. They are not about to leave. Even if they were offered sanctuary in US/Europe do you think they would go????


What is the solution to this mess? I would suggest -
1. Removal of US/UK troops in Iraq (though then they would be open to accusations that they left the contry ina mess - it is almost an unwinnable situation)
2. Israel to begin initiatives to leave the occupied territories
3. Islamic factions to call an end to attacks on Israel / the west if the above two conitions are met

Will this happen? doubt it... Even if it did, would it end Islamic violence? What do you think?


So in short - TErence you have done a lot of finger pointing and blaming (according to you none of this violence is the Muslims fault) -

WHAT IS THE TERENCE SOLUTION?

I think the UK foreign policy since 9/11 has been mistaken to the point of criminal. The government and Blair in particular has crawled so far up Bush's ass its untrue. America dont need UK troops to help them fight its wars in either Afghanistan or Iraq. The only reason why our armies are there is cos of Blair wanting to appear like some big player on the world stage. Iraq is now a terrible place, on the brink of civil war and much more unstable than when Saddam was in charge! Also weve got big trouble in our own country with the terrorist threat from UK born Moslem extremists. If Blair hadnt cowtowed to Bush and supported his illegal wars then we wouldnt have had the chaos we saw in the airports yesterday nor the carnage last July in London. WTF have we gained out of these wars?

Though Israel is supposed to have one of the most powerful armies in the world, you have to worry about their level of military intelligence. Many of the air bombers have apparently deliberately missed targets due to receiving inadequate information, & in fear of obliterating innocents. Of course, Israel are in for a tough time given that Hezbollah can seemingly blend so seamlessly in with the people in Lebanon, what with the civilian support that they are said to get. But on another level, the attacks are quite general, as their scorched earth policy requires that ppl simply get the smeg out of there.

viciousmaussa wrote:Though Israel is supposed to have one of the most powerful armies in the world, you have to worry about their level of military intelligence. Many of the air bombers have apparently deliberately missed targets due to receiving inadequate information, & in fear of obliterating innocents. Of course, Israel are in for a tough time given that Hezbollah can seemingly blend so seamlessly in with the people in Lebanon, what with the civilian support that they are said to get. But on another level, the attacks are quite general, as their scorched earth policy requires that ppl simply get the smeg out of there.

Indeed.Maybe they were taught all they know by the Americans

RobD wrote:Why does the UK have such warm feelings for Israel. Didn't Israeli guerilla units attack British soldiers around the WWII era. Also killed a British Lord in Cairo .

For the same reason the US does. There are a lot of infuential Jews in this country.

Terence wrote:E, you are anti-organised religion? You don't seem nearly as vitriolic when discussing the claims of the Zionist movement.

You've tried having this one before (when you accused The Prophet of slaughter), where are the forced conversions mentioned in texts? Last time you posted spectacularly misinformed posts about Islam saying it forced conversion and this was practised in the Koran, so why did Mohammed allow Jews and Christians to live in his state? You forgot to get back to me last time. How many conflicts around the world involve Islam? Hmm. Evidently I am dealing with a mind far superior to my own so let me answer a question with a question. How many conflicts around the world involve the UK/US axis? Then answer me this. How many Islamic conflicts are fought against the UK/US axis? Now answer this. Did Islam come into our borders in this century and force a state upon us? Did Islam decade a tenuous right to the UK and invade it? Islam has bloody borders? We have bloody hands, how many Eastern countries did we subjugate? If the Arabs don't like diplomacy why are the Lebanon leaders calling for a UN instigated cease-fire. If we love diplomacy why is our PM lying on a beach and the President refusing to condemn Israel and sending a devout Christian conservative woman to deal with Muslims and Zionists.

How were the Crusades protecting the Christian minority? In the Arab world the Arabs, Jews and Christians gathered in learning centres in places like Iraq and translated the holy scriptures as well as systemising Plato and Aristotle, Christian Monks in the UK were burning Aristotelian texts at this time due to the fact they did not approve of his writings on comedy and tragedy, hence none survive to this day. Civilised eh?How can a military campaign waged outside our own borders be self-defence. Why, when repealed, were the Crusaders allowed to return home.

Most Europeans are not practising Christians right? Aside from our PM? Who says god will judge him? Funny because one of the tenets of democracy is that his electorate shall judge him. Is this the PM who said recently in the Commons he will step aside when he wants to and who when told that he has no right to decide this and keep things unstable replied that the majority vote gives him the right to do this?

We may be against the war in Iraq but did we go out and vote for another party? No. We stayed home and complained about it and allowed Blair to sneak through. As for 25% of Muslims supporting 7/7 (the fact we give these atrocities pithy little labels should speak volumes about out mind-set) I don't want to scare you but the number is probably a lot higher behind closed doors.

As for Israel, you won't be removing Jews, the Jews can remain as groups like NK live in Palestine anyway and consider themselves Palestinians. You would be removing Zionists. The solution is to leave the chosen people (so-called) to lie in their bed over there. Israel wants to be a part of the West but it is in the East. If it is so strong, stable and not US sponsored we should withdraw all support and see how well it stands on its own two feet. If it falls then, evidently, they are a transplanted people living in a conquered land. Usually we liberals, so-called, rejoice when a conquered people gain independence. Maybe we should have been less harsh when Hamas were DEMOCRATICALLY elected and we tried ot bully them. Possibly the only solution that does not require blood-letting is to abolish Israel, open the borders and the territories and turn a two-nation state into the three (Arabs, Christians and Orthodox Jews) nation state it was before we stuck our oar in. Then close the global borders and acknowledge that there is a difference between East and West. If they are so desperate for democracy they will find it, why should we force it on them?

There is no Terence solution. There is an E solution, stop thinking like Nick Gritth and point out the Koranic passages you have read and let me check them against my Saudi (moderate) English/Arabic Koran. For every Al Queda there is a Gush Emunim and if you want to know the difference and the legitimacy between a Zionist and a Jews the answer is there. Jews lived in Palestine for a long time and will go back there one day, when the Zionists leave. Then there will be peace in that region and a chance for scars to heal.

'Maussa, the national service in Israel and the anti-Arab bent of your average young Zionist means that their army are getting a chance to do something they enjoy, that is why they bring so much zeal. What does bombing a funeral achieve?

That is pretty much me done on the subject. I doubt the UN are reading this strand. Poor Blair, he needed a holiday after this.

Slapsie, I agree, how many were arrested the last time 'terrorists' were raided? One guy shot and still no concrete evidence.

Yes, it's obvious that democracy is only popular when the 'right' party is elected.

After all, nobody had a problem with Saddam's regime when he was batting for the right side, he only became a 'dictator' when they decided he was standing in the way of getting their hands on his resources, which they thought they had indefinite access to for arming him against Iran.

It's funny isn't it, the biggest wars in history, the 1st and 2nd world wars were fought by or started by European empire builders who were trying to annexe as much of the world as possible, and yet it is the east that is being portrayed as the enemy and the bloodthirsty ones. Most of the wars that have been fought in that region, are as a result of the meddling of Western Powers and the end of their empires resulting in factious warring. Look at India and Pakistan. They were one country, with Muslim, Hindu and Seikh as well as some christians and other minor denominations living in relative harmony. Until of course the British decided that as a parting shot, they would give Jenna what he wanted (it was Jenna wasn't it?), and partition the country. They have been in a state teetering on war ever since.

Similarly, most of the borders in the middle east are artificial boundaries in what is essentially a largely tribal lands of similar but different peoples, who have been crammed into a land with borders which they themselves would not otherwise recognise. As most of the lands of the middle east were ruled by one or other foreign power until the last 50 years, is it any surprise that there are border disputes which are over resources?

As far as I am aware, as Terrence says, the whole story about the christian minority being persecuted was bullshit propoganda of the time. The reality was that there was vast wealth to be had in the Levant, and the crusaders want't to get their armoured hands on it. Similarly, the romans portrayed the Celts and the Goths as savage barbarians to justify their wars with them, the truth was both tribes were in lands with vast reserves of gold. In fact, minted roman gold coins didn't exist until they took the lands belonging to the celts, early in the history of the roman empire.

all wars are about territory and resources, ideologies provided differences which create the excuses to go to war. Osama Bin Laden may talk the language of a Mullah, but I am sure that he is more interested in preventing the arab nations, who happen to sit on vast puddles of oil, being wholesale taken over and run as puppet nations.


Sadly, there is too much vested interest for Israel to ever be abolished now, the damage was done when they created it, the holocaust meant that the Arabs surrounding them were forced to cede lands to assuage the guilt of the western world who waited too long before doing what was neccessary to end the slaughter of the Jews. It was an insane move. Why didn't they just let the Jews return to palestine?

Terence wrote:

yiddo14 wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:Though Israel is supposed to have one of the most powerful armies in the world, you have to worry about their level of military intelligence. Many of the air bombers have apparently deliberately missed targets due to receiving inadequate information, & in fear of obliterating innocents. Of course, Israel are in for a tough time given that Hezbollah can seemingly blend so seamlessly in with the people in Lebanon, what with the civilian support that they are said to get. But on another level, the attacks are quite general, as their scorched earth policy requires that ppl simply get the smeg out of there.

Indeed.Maybe they were taught all they know by the Americans

No offence 'Maussa but that line is very inspector Clousseau "I am a master of disguisez!" It's been making me laugh a fair bit, in a good way I keep imagining Arabs dressed in macs with big 'taches sneaking about Lebanon.

However, Hezbollah get a lot of support from civilians, especially considering the #s of crack troops they have. The line between civilian and soldier is somewhat blurry. But that point could be arbitrary when you consider the Israeli offensive - which is totally not precise - which seems to go by the strategy of 'who cares, blow it the fcuk up'. Even when they're not hitting anything, they are shit scaring a lot of ppl to get out of there. Dead, half dead under rubble, or evacuated, it doesn't matter to them. So long as the place is clear of life.

Terence wrote: E, you are anti-organised religion? You don't seem nearly as vitriolic when discussing the claims of the Zionist movement.

Er OK mate - but Zionists are not trying to kill me, my family and friends..... but if it makes you happy: fvck Zionism and its exclusive, superiority-complex led claims.

Terence wrote:You've tried having this one before (when you accused The Prophet of slaughter), where are the forced conversions mentioned in texts? Last time you posted spectacularly misinformed posts about Islam saying it forced conversion and this was practised in the Koran, so why did Mohammed allow Jews and Christians to live in his state? You forgot to get back to me last time.

Forced conversions:
In Persia: The Jews were forced to convert by a series of discriminatory laws applied over the course of two centuries. They suffered from the restrictions laid down by OMAR, and were excluded from public office. Having no representation in government, unable to build any new schools or synagogues, subject to special taxes and occasional outbursts of religious violence -- the peasant community largely converted by the end of the 9th century. Because of heavy taxation on cultivated land, a unique change occurred in the Jewish community. For the first time a small minority of Jews left agriculture and concentrated in the larger towns, especially Baghdad, Basra and Mosul where they became traders and craftsmen. The peasants, however, intermarried and became the core of what we call today "The Kurds".

Present day Indonesia;

In a disturbing new development, hundreds of Christian families are being
forced to convert to Islam or face death. Entire Christians villages are
currently held captive by militants in East Seram, Keswui and Teor Islands
facing the daily threat of violence.

The Koran (as I said before, though it seems you didn't pay attention) has 3 paths for so called 'infidels' accoring to the Koran:
1. Convert to Islam
2. Pay dhimma taxes
3. die
This seems rather close to forced conversion.

So, yes if you like Mohammed allowed Jews and Christians to live in 'his' state; but only if they were happy to live as second class citizens an pay extortionate taxes. (hmmm sounds like discriminatory apartheid to me; but no doubt that is acceptable to you as long as it is imposed by your 'civilized and cultured' muslims.) And why do you refer to Mohammed as 'The Prophet?" to 5 billion humans he is nothing of the sort.

Terence wrote:How many conflicts around the world involve Islam? Hmm. Evidently I am dealing with a mind far superior to my own

Yes, I agree with you here.

Terence wrote:so let me answer a question with a question. How many conflicts around the world involve the UK/US axis? Then answer me this. How many Islamic conflicts are fought against the UK/US axis?

2 as I understand; Iraq and Afghanistan. (oh and neither of which I support)
As opposed to the following involving Islam;
Kashmir/India
UK
USA
Spain
(and in fact could hypothetically include any western nation, though attacks may not yet have happened)
Sudan
Nigeria
Ivory Coast
East Timor
Kurdistan
Philippines
Uganda
Palestine/Israel
Chechenya

Terence wrote: Now answer this. Did Islam come into our borders in this century and force a state upon us?

No, but many are trying - 1/3 of Muslims want Sharia law in UK.

Terence wrote: Did Islam decade a tenuous right to the UK and invade it?

Yes - Muslims think the world belongs to Allah and everyone should be a Muslim in their 'ideal' world.

Terence wrote: Islam has bloody borders? We have bloody hands, how many Eastern countries did we subjugate? If the Arabs don't like diplomacy why are the Lebanon leaders calling for a UN instigated cease-fire. If we love diplomacy why is our PM lying on a beach and the President refusing to condemn Israel and sending a devout Christian conservative woman to deal with Muslims and Zionists.

Jaysus stop trying to pretend Bush and Blair represent the West - I despise them both - I voted against Blair, and would certainly have voted against Bush if I could have done. And the US governments unequivocal support of Israel is a disgrace...........

Terence wrote:How were the Crusades protecting the Christian minority?

The crusades were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world were conquered by Muslim armies. In brief, by the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul.

Terence wrote: In the Arab world the Arabs, Jews and Christians gathered in learning centres in places like Iraq and translated the holy scriptures as well as systemising Plato and Aristotle, Christian Monks in the UK were burning Aristotelian texts at this time due to the fact they did not approve of his writings on comedy and tragedy, hence none survive to this day. Civilised eh?How can a military campaign waged outside our own borders be self-defence. Why, when repealed, were the Crusaders allowed to return home.

?????? Why do you keep bringing examples of Christian wrong-doing as a defence to Muslim wrong doing? One wrong does not justify another. I am irreligious and am against all religious bigotry and primitive belief. But it is not the Amish, the Sikh, the Hindu, the Jewish, the animist etc tec who wishes to destroy my way of life and freedoms.

Terence wrote: Most Europeans are not practising Christians right? Aside from our PM? Who says god will judge him? Funny because one of the tenets of democracy is that his electorate shall judge him. Is this the PM who said recently in the Commons he will step aside when he wants to and who when told that he has no right to decide this and keep things unstable replied that the majority vote gives him the right to do this?.

Fvck Tony Blair - he is a pudendum, and no more represents my views (and many fellow britons) than Bin Laden. Blair is in power because more people voted labour than other parties....but these vote are on many issues not just Iraq. Blair would is in power largely because of Scotland - without the Scottish vote, Labour would have lost the last election.

Terence wrote: We may be against the war in Iraq but did we go out and vote for another party? No. We stayed home and complained about it and allowed Blair to sneak through.

Speak for yourself mate, I vote Lib dem.
Labour won despite polling only 35% of the popular vote, equating to approximately 22% of the electorate based on the estimated turnout of 61.3%. (according to Wikipedia). In other words despite being in power, Labour represents a minority of British people. Please stop saying 'we' when you're talking about what the labour goverment is doing . They are not representing the majority view in the UK.

Terence wrote: As for 25% of Muslims supporting 7/7 (the fact we give these atrocities pithy little labels should speak volumes about out mind-set) I don't want to scare you but the number is probably a lot higher behind closed doors.

As for Israel, you won't be removing Jews, the Jews can remain as groups like NK live in Palestine anyway and consider themselves Palestinians. You would be removing Zionists. The solution is to leave the chosen people (so-called) to lie in their bed over there. Israel wants to be a part of the West but it is in the East. If it is so strong, stable and not US sponsored we should withdraw all support and see how well it stands on its own two feet. If it falls then, evidently, they are a transplanted people living in a conquered land. Usually we liberals, so-called, rejoice when a conquered people gain independence. Maybe we should have been less harsh when Hamas were DEMOCRATICALLY elected and we tried ot bully them. Possibly the only solution that does not require blood-letting is to abolish Israel, open the borders and the territories and turn a two-nation state into the three (Arabs, Christians and Orthodox Jews) nation state it was before we stuck our oar in. Then close the global borders and acknowledge that there is a difference between East and West. If they are so desperate for democracy they will find it, why should we force it on them?

I largely agree with you here.

Terence wrote: There is no Terence solution. There is an E solution,

I actually rather agree with your proposal above. My problem however is what I see as the threat of Islamism to my way of life (not to mention my life itself!), my freedom of expression and thought, scientific advances etc.

Terence wrote: stop thinking like Nick Gritth and point out the Koranic passages you have read and let me check them against my Saudi (moderate) English/Arabic Koran.

OK a few verses OK'ing violence in the Quran:

(Koran 8:12) "Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them."

Koran 17:16-17
When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet transgress; so that Allah's word is proved true against them: then we destroy them utterly. How many generations have we destroyed after Noah? And enough is thy Lord to note and see the Sins of his servants

Koran 58:5
Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be crumbled to dust, as were those before them: for we have already sent down Clear Signs and the Unbelievers will have a humiliating Penalty

Koran 5:33
The Punishment for those who oppose Allah and his messenger is : Execution or Crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land

Sura 47 is the most interesting;
When ye encounter the infidels,3 strike off their heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the fetters.

Now, I am relying on Translations here as I cannot read Arabic. There are plenty more violent instructions as I understand.

Terence wrote:For every Al Queda there is a Gush Emunim and if you want to know the difference and the legitimacy between a Zionist and a Jews the answer is there. Jews lived in Palestine for a long time and will go back there one day, when the Zionists leave. Then there will be peace in that region and a chance for scars to heal.

If you mean Nick Griffin, then I am not sure what you are implying. I am irreligious and apolitical - that is no single party even vaguely represents my views: I have liberal/leftist views on homosexuality, freedom of speech, tolerance, the welfare state, drug legalization, law enforcement/rehabilitation but what may be considered rightist views on immigration. But most of all I am a pragmatist - I want what works and I want to preserve my way of life.

Terence wrote:
You do not recognise Mohammed, nor do the West in general and many Christians fail to do so, yet Muslims do not renounce Christ, they embrace him, hardly a sign of intolerance is it

Muslims wouldn't renounce Jesus, because Jesus also so happens to be a prophet of Islam. Why would Christians embrace Mohammed when he was around after the period of the New Testament etc?

Islam is a far "newer" religion than Christianity isn't it? Mohammed is about as genuine a prophet as L. Ron Hubbard....